Jump to content

Yearly awards committee


bjornmma1

Recommended Posts

What I would like to propose is a yearly awards committee with 5 people.

 

Each year it has been the same retarded story about people messaging around for votes and at times even buying them.

Time to put an end to this, so that we can make the awards more important and relevant again!

 

Would be as following:

 

- Nomination threads get posted on the 1st of December.

- Mass mail get sent out by Mike the same day.
- People get one month to nominate those who they feel are worthy.

- Should retarded discussions start, altough they would have no point, mods will interfere.

- During the 1st week of January, the committee comes together in a private MMAtycoon chat group, to discuss the nominations and vote.

- Winners get announced at the start of the 2nd week of January.

 

 

As for who exactly would form that commitee, I would obviously suggest a mix of well known managers with a ton of experience and from different alliances + Mike.

 

 

Possible examples :

* Mike + GBK + CK + Bjorn + Marky O'sullivan and Bwang.

* Mike + GBK + CK + Bjorn + Marky O'sullivan and Bradley Burns.

* ...

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was actually saying to people that a thread was gonna go up post-awards this year to discuss the removal / addition of some awards, and also to adjust the voting process. One of the ideas that came up was gonna be a committee, but I think 5 people is too small to encompass the entire game.

 

Mike would be better off being a member of the committee purely to act as the "speaker" of sorts. Tbh, he doesn't pay too much attention to the events in the game, so I doubt he would be the best judge of who would be the best guys to win certain awards, but if he said he would look at the nominees and actually research into them, I think he would be a good member.

 

My suggestion would be each alliance can nominate one person to represent them. This might lead to a number of people nominated, so perhaps put in a cap of like 12 members, and if more than 12 apply, then it comes down to something that can be easily judged and is unbiased - Such as divisional position or something along those lines. All I know is, a change to the voting procedure would definitely be a benefit if done correctly.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make it as unbiased as possible why don’t we make a rule that there can only be one person per alliance in the comitee. And to form it let’s take one out of top 5 alliances

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was actually saying to people that a thread was gonna go up post-awards this year to discuss the removal / addition of some awards, and also to adjust the voting process. One of the ideas that came up was gonna be a committee, but I think 5 people is too small to encompass the entire game.

 

Mike would be better off being a member of the committee purely to act as the "speaker" of sorts. Tbh, he doesn't pay too much attention to the events in the game, so I doubt he would be the best judge of who would be the best guys to win certain awards, but if he said he would look at the nominees and actually research into them, I think he would be a good member.

 

My suggestion would be each alliance can nominate one person to represent them. This might lead to a number of people nominated, so perhaps put in a cap of like 12 members, and if more than 12 apply, then it comes down to something that can be easily judged and is unbiased - Such as divisional position or something along those lines. All I know is, a change to the voting procedure would definitely be a benefit if done correctly.

Just as I pointed out about ` the group` beforehand, the bigger, the more complicated and less smooth that it will work. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, using the implementations since the group as `proof`.
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 I think there should be a committee to filter out poor nominations or to keep the nominations down to a certain amount (5 candidates). The only case we should allow more candidates are non objective nominations (ie the avatars, posters, logos). The problem here is how to choose the committee? It cannot be based upon alliances because some alliances have 80 members and some alliances have 5 members. All members of this game are bia's (that is kind of obvious if you look at the voting patterns), so creating a committee will be difficult.

 

#2 I generally have no problem with people campaigning or trying to influence voters, if we have the committee that creates a short list of nominations, it wont really matter if someone is trying to "buy" votes because he first has to get listed in the first place and that is down to the committee. I also have no problem with people voting for whoever they want, that includes themselves, it is allowed in real life, so why not here? You wont win an award by voting for yourself anyway and no one alliance can/win an award if they do not have a legit candidate.

 

#3 Generally i think only VIP's should vote, i do not think that is even possible to do because the forums are open, but this will get around the IP/multi account issue and will also filter out candidates that are more likely to get bribed for voting for someone.

 

As for the retarded discussions, i do not give a damn, most of the discussions are retarded anyway. I kind of like it that people are trying to cheat, bully or debate their way to winning a poll on a gaming forum, it spices up the whole place, why moderate that? The polls do not actually mean anything, they are purely popularity contests, i do not think they even give out the trophies any more, so let people trash each other, that is the only good thing that is coming out of this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as I pointed out about ` the group` beforehand, the bigger, the more complicated and less smooth that it will work. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, using the implementations since the group as `proof`.

Difference between the group and this instance, is that there is a clear time line for this.

 

Let everyone nominate, then when January rolls around, each committee member is sent the list of awards and are given a week or so to vote for their winner. When the deadline is passed, the results are published, possibly along with who voted for who if that's something people would want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea for an commitee for the awards has been suggested before I believe, or at least talked about. I always like the idea to have that in place. Perhaps even a few more people than just 5.

However, the fact you want yourself on there already just causes a red flag for me. If this is an idea that is actually going to be implemented, then I think Mike and perhaps some mods with good reputation should have a look for possible candidates for the commitee. People wanting to be in it from the get go just seem to have an agenda of sorts, no matter how noble they try to act about it.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike would be better off being a member of the committee purely to act as the "speaker" of sorts. Tbh, he doesn't pay too much attention to the events in the game, so I doubt he would be the best judge of who would be the best guys to win certain awards, but if he said he would look at the nominees and actually research into them, I think he would be a good member.

 

I share the same thoughts about Mike in regards to him picking winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea for an commitee for the awards has been suggested before I believe, or at least talked about. I always like the idea to have that in place. Perhaps even a few more people than just 5.

However, the fact you want yourself on there already just causes a red flag for me. If this is an idea that is actually going to be implemented, then I think Mike and perhaps some mods with good reputation should have a look for possible candidates for the commitee. People wanting to be in it from the get go just seem to have an agenda of sorts, no matter how noble they try to act about it.

I have no agenda of my own, just know that I am one of the most active members in the game and know a lot of people.

Also, I would not vote for myself, as that would not be allowed either.

I am one of the guys who does an effort to try and improve the game.

Anyway, Mike would decide the group,not me or anyone else. It was just an example.

 

Using big groups to make decisions is useless. Make a small selection, max 10 then perhaps and then this could really work.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering a lot of the drama this year was caused due to GBK going to Kendrick and Tom with pretty much word for word what me and him were talking about in PMs I would vote to keep him as far away from these awards as possible going forward.

 

There is also the Humors designer of the year award where he was nominated.

 

Oh and he is also ignoring TJ's request.

 

Like seriously. 3 strikes.

 

He can stay on minor stuff like "the group" as he is an experienced manager but he has proved incapable of being objective and has serious ties to some groups/alliances. Go vote on more cabinets please.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering all the bullshit that these awards make around the forum & the fact they dont really mean much maybe have people nominate like normal & the top 5 noms get thrown in a bag & randomly picked out as a winner then most of the crap would be cut out. Ive not been along long enough to know but id guess the top 5 in most categories would be worthy of the win anyway with the exception of afew. Its not a great idea but anything would be better than the cluster right now lol

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering a lot of the drama this year was caused due to GBK going to Kendrick and Tom with pretty much word for word what me and him were talking about in PMs I would vote to keep him as far away from these awards as possible going forward.

 

There is also the Humors designer of the year award where he was nominated.

 

Oh and he is also ignoring TJ's request.

 

Like seriously. 3 strikes.

 

He can stay on minor stuff like "the group" as he is an experienced manager but he has proved incapable of being objective and has serious ties to some groups/alliances. Go vote on more cabinets please.

Sadly its the truth but you will get destroyed by sheep that love and idolise him.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering all the bullshit that these awards make around the forum & the fact they dont really mean much maybe have people nominate like normal & the top 5 noms get thrown in a bag & randomly picked out as a winner then most of the crap would be cut out. Ive not been along long enough to know but id guess the top 5 in most categories would be worthy of the win anyway with the exception of afew. Its not a great idea but anything would be better than the cluster right now lol

 

 

I'd say just remove the awards completely since people can't act like grown men and do all kind of bullshit in order to get themselves ahead. Accusing the other candidate of cheating and buying votes without having any proof at all is stupid and childish. You can do whatever you want with the awards, but I lost any interest at all in them, after the recent events.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd say just remove the awards completely since people can't act like grown men and do all kind of bullshit in order to get themselves ahead. Accusing the other candidate of cheating and buying votes without having any proof at all is stupid and childish. You can do whatever you want with the awards, but I lost any interest at all in them, after the recent events.

Yeah i suppose you could just get rid of them. Well its clearly stupid when you name names & then them same people come on here to say youre talking shit so he should have thought about that alittle longer. Everybody likes to recieve praise via awards etc but considering they play no real part in anything im suprised how much they mean to some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd say just remove the awards completely since people can't act like grown men and do all kind of bullshit in order to get themselves ahead. Accusing the other candidate of cheating and buying votes without having any proof at all is stupid and childish. You can do whatever you want with the awards, but I lost any interest at all in them, after the recent events.

this.. its pointless and always starts drama, hence why i stay away from the comments.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering a lot of the drama this year was caused due to GBK going to Kendrick and Tom with pretty much word for word what me and him were talking about in PMs I would vote to keep him as far away from these awards as possible going forward.

 

There is also the Humors designer of the year award where he was nominated.

 

Oh and he is also ignoring TJ's request.

 

Like seriously. 3 strikes.

 

He can stay on minor stuff like "the group" as he is an experienced manager but he has proved incapable of being objective and has serious ties to some groups/alliances. Go vote on more cabinets please.

Actually, all the drama was between yourself and Ovo canvassing for votes. You just decided to explode on everyone when it turned out they were still winning by the end of it. You wouldn't have said anything had Ovo not canvassed for votes for TJ, because then you would be winning. It's fucking sad that you want to cause this amount of shit, over a fucking fictional award.

 

The Humors thing was Mike's decision. You can feel free to PM him on the topic, but he is the one who said Humors is not eligible for it, but he did say Humors would be eligible for it next year if he continues his current form. I even said to Mike that Humors has been relatively good over the course of the year in terms of how he has acted.

 

The TJ thing - You can even see I said how that was being dealt with. Funny thing is you claim I am causing all the drama, while I am taking it away from the drama by dealing with it in a PM with TJ.

 

You on the other hand consistently lie in an attempt to make yourself look better in a discussion, and then remove your posts the second you get tripped up on it.

 

You even lied on an outside forum that you were canvassing votes on where you claimed that Ovo was trying to buy votes for TJ.

 

Your logic on my standing is also backwards. You claim I am biased on these things...Yet I am on the side of making it Committee based, which would in fact make it so I couldn't possibly be biased in getting someone to win an award. All you can do is blow smoke and hope people think it's a raging fire, but you are just making yourself look like an idiot. You know it's bad when Humors is being a "class act" as he likes to put it on regards to the ruling it seems, yet you continue to cause bullshit drama.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the awards work reasonably well as is. We seem to get one person every year who goes a little Tonya Harding but for the most part everyone sees them for what they are, a bit of fun.

 

A committee type setup next year might be worth a try though. That along with trimming down the number of awards. Just don't expect it to stop that inevitable one drama queen making an appearance.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the awards work reasonably well as is. We seem to get one person every year who goes a little Tonya Harding but for the most part everyone sees them for what they are, a bit of fun.

 

A committee type setup next year might be worth a try though. That along with trimming down the number of awards. Just don't expect it to stop that inevitable one drama queen making an appearance.

lmao seriously last year it was humors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, all the drama was between yourself and Ovo canvassing for votes. You just decided to explode on everyone when it turned out they were still winning by the end of it. You wouldn't have said anything had Ovo not canvassed for votes for TJ, because then you would be winning. It's fucking sad that you want to cause this amount of shit, over a fucking fictional award.

 

The Humors thing was Mike's decision. You can feel free to PM him on the topic, but he is the one who said Humors is not eligible for it, but he did say Humors would be eligible for it next year if he continues his current form. I even said to Mike that Humors has been relatively good over the course of the year in terms of how he has acted.

 

The TJ thing - You can even see I said how that was being dealt with. Funny thing is you claim I am causing all the drama, while I am taking it away from the drama by dealing with it in a PM with TJ.

 

You on the other hand consistently lie in an attempt to make yourself look better in a discussion, and then remove your posts the second you get tripped up on it.

 

You even lied on an outside forum that you were canvassing votes on where you claimed that Ovo was trying to buy votes for TJ.

 

Your logic on my standing is also backwards. You claim I am biased on these things...Yet I am on the side of making it Committee based, which would in fact make it so I couldn't possibly be biased in getting someone to win an award. All you can do is blow smoke and hope people think it's a raging fire, but you are just making yourself look like an idiot. You know it's bad when Humors is being a "class act" as he likes to put it on regards to the ruling it seems, yet you continue to cause bullshit drama.

You are right, you are not triggered lol

 

You would make a great moderator by the way lol

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...